BF110 with BMW radial engines

RAGMAN · 06-20-2007, 05:08 PM

Ah, I finally got a computer,my last one crashed and burned.I was wondering how the BF110 would have performed if it used the BMW radial engines that the FW190 used?I always thought the speed would have been better.What do you guys think?Thanks.

Heinz · 06-21-2007, 02:04 AM

Speed would have increased for sure. Fitting the engines is another I doubt the stock wings would have been strong enough for the heavy engine.

Grampa · 06-21-2007, 06:57 AM

A radial engine give more drag than a inline engine but it will still give more speed, but in other hand it also gonna give more power so it will climb and accelerate faster than the inline engine. but the negativa thing is that if you putting bigger engine in that plane you gonna get negativa effect like heavier plane that will reduce the plane's agility and range for example.

timshatz · 06-21-2007, 08:09 AM

Still be a turkey against a single engined bird. Faster, but not enough to save itself. Somebody else made a good point about the airframe not being strong enough. Probably true.

SoD Stitch · 06-21-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heinz

Speed would have increased for sure. Fitting the engines is another I doubt the stock wings would have been strong enough for the heavy engine.

I'm also guessing the CG would've been off . . . having two radial engines out on the front end of the nacelles would've upset the aircraft's center of gravity . . . the CG of the in-lines would've been two or three feet further to the rear. I imagine there would've been some severe nose-down tendencies for the aircraft . . .

timshatz · 06-21-2007, 04:18 PM

Good point Sod.

Heinz · 06-22-2007, 01:45 AM

For sure SoD would make it a hairy thing indeed.

RAGMAN · 06-22-2007, 04:54 PM

I wonder why the luftwaffe didn't make a twin radial engined fighter?I read that the bmw engine was more readily available than the DB engines? Mind you the plane would still be a unmanueverable compared to a single engine fighter though,maybe even a pig on gas too.

timshatz · 06-23-2007, 07:31 AM

My understanding is they didn't think much of radial engines in a high speed situation. Though inlines did that kind of work. Radials were used for bombers. Tank convinced them with the 190 that it could be done. By that time...

renrich · 07-01-2007, 06:07 PM

This is a minor point but a radial engine is inherently lighter than an inline one and more compact so it would probably not have stuck out as far in front of the leading edge of the wings and the CG would probably not have been a problem.

Heinz · 07-02-2007, 01:28 AM

Lighter? I always thought they tended to be heavier.

net_sailor · 07-02-2007, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heinz

Lighter? I always thought they tended to be heavier.

Heinz, inline enginies has an cooling system also, so you have to add weight of pipelines and radiators including liquid coolant.

Heinz · 07-02-2007, 04:57 AM

Ah of course, thanks net_sailor.

I know some of the radials generally had more cylinders which is why I thought them to be heavier.

helmitsmit · 07-02-2007, 07:56 AM

But then it was going to be replaced by the Me210 or 410. Before that point the BMW was quite new to service in the 190.

renrich · 07-02-2007, 07:59 AM

I believe that in engines of the same displacement the radial would always be lighter. If you recall the reason why rotary engines which are the predecessors of radials, were so popular in ww1 was that they were extremely light and compact.